Doom - Quakecon Demo Displayed Visuals Really Close To Those Of The Pre-Rendered E3 Teaser Trailer

Since Doom was revealed behind closed doors - and as there is still no footage from it - a lot of gamers wondered whether the E3 teaser trailer packed in-game visuals or not. After all, Bethesda has never commented on whether the teaser trailer featured in-engine visuals or not. Well, according to Doomworld's members 'GoatLord' and 'Caffeine Freak' who attended Quakecon, Doom's demo was pretty close to that E3 teaser trailer (graphics wise), though it did look exactly the same as that pre-rendered trailer.

Do you have any better sources for that? I'm not disagreeing, just keep seeing conflicting word on that...

Originally everyone said its using a 'new engine', but then a couple interviews with Bethesda and iD said it was using a 'highly modified version of IDTech 5 (rage engine), and we're only focusing on next gen equipment'...or something like that...

don't really care either way...i just want to actually see the gameplay haha...

They might be previous gen, but the texture popins in Rage were horrendous. If we got that at 60 fps, hell no. Cry engine, or Crytek in general, has always been about a beautiful games. They just lack in other departments.

If idtech truly use ray tracing in some sort of way or the other (like the wikipedia page says) then it would obliterate cryengine and UE4 anyday of the week. Of course that would take a lot of graphical horsepower to run.

sorry, you guys are crazy...I still have my original day 1 copy of Doom 3 for PC from summer '04...and got the BFG Edition for Ps3 whenever it released...the BFG edition definitely added some things that should've been in there to begin with (flashlight being on your suit, etc.)...but they're still SO FAR from what Doom is all about...it makes my head hurt...

the original Doom games...are what i'm hoping for with this new title...Doom 3, no matter the version or edition...was a prequel to Dead Space...not a reboot of arguably the most well known franchise ever created...

If any of you can play Brutal Doom, and then still think Doom 3 is a 'classic'...i'd be very surprised...its crazy to me they even share the same 4 letter name...

Heck the Brutal Doom mod is good looking enough for me, it just needs to be 60 fps minimum, fast paced and visceral like that, that's what made Doom 1&2 so great too, that and the excellent sound effects and music.

I see a lot of noise being spouted here in these comments and not a lot or sense being made, especially from ATi_Elite near the top, who just spouted a lot of bollocks to be blunt. Why would id, a company who writes it's own engines and sells them as SDK want to take on another company's engine (last time I checked, Crytek were up shit creek anyway) and work on it, paying them a small fortune for the privilege? Not only that, but Id focus on pushing the envelope in other ways than fancy shaders. They're aiming for performance coupled with bleeding edge visuals. Something Crytek is absolutely shit at: optimisation. Oh, and Tech6 is a brand spanking new engine. Nothing has been built on it. Nothing has been seen on it, and that includes the CGI trailer, which was not rendered on the engine as ATi_Elite says. It was outsourced to another company to produce an offline CGI. The assets have nothing to do with Doom's design, so I wouldn't even expect the look of the Cyberdemon to be the same. Do some homework on the engine, and what it's supposedly aiming for (voxel/tri based hybrid engine with ray casting capabilities) before talking shite, eh?

Lets hop id Tech 6 be good and strong engine my self i dont like id Tech 5 >john carmack was work on the new id Tech 6 i think cryengine not fit Doom game because its not suport Blood thing AND THAT KIND OF GAMEs ATi_Elite YOU think id Tech 6 is garbage > i dont think so

Because id Tech6 run 60 FPS AND CRYengine Run Below that on the same hardware